It's stupid. Just don't let the game start until the lobby is full. It takes a legit 10 sometimes 15 minutes to finally get into a game. I didn't play this game for a week and the irresistible itch game back. I've been playing for the past several days and quickly remembered why I quit playing. It's just to annoying trying to get into a full 5 on 5 lobby.

Andrew wrote:But as you noted, it's not always feasible to get five users per side. That's not something EA can really control or guarantee, hence the use of AI players. 2K does the same with its Pro-Am.

Lobby's usually end up 1-3 players short. If the countdown timer didn't start until the lobby was full I couldn't imagine it would take that long for the lobby to fill completely up. There a lot of games that have matchmaking like this. Rainbow Six Siege is another game I have played a lot and games don't start until the lobby is full with 5 players on each side.

As far as people quitting out and AI filling the spot, that is a whole different issue and i have ideas for that as well. But for now, not starting the counter until the lobby is full would be a fantastic start so we can at least have the ability to go into full 5 on 5 games without having to lobby surf for 10-15 minutes. As of right now, whenever I try to play Live I literally spend more time lobby surfing trying to get in a full lobby with 5 players on each side. That's not right.

Having to quit out of lobby's and try and try again is truly a nightmare and is ruining this game for me. 3 on 3 is somewhat compensation I suppose and could get me through until the next Live but that doesn't completely fix the disappointment of the 5 on 5 issue.

I see the point about the counter. I still think there's going to be an underlying problem as far as ensuring and enforcing five users per side, though. I mean, that isn't always the case even in NBA 2K, a game that sells more copies and has a larger online user base.

With that being said, I think EA should take a page out of 2K's book in terms of its approach to online team play, and feature designated squads. That might make it easier to get games full of users. From experience with 2K Pro-Am, a lot of organised teams do often play with 4-5 users. The NLSC squad usually runs with 3-4 people, depending on who's available, but we've also had nights where we've had five players.

I think you're always going to have times where it's difficult to get ten users with a lobby/walk-on approach, and it's hard to satisfy everyone in that regard. AI teammates have their issues, but it's no fun having to wait a long time to start a game, whether it's finding opponents or teammates. It's hard to devise a solution that everyone's going to be happy with.

ThaLiveKing wrote:Like it or not 3 on 3 is saving this game at the moment. You can find 2 other players that tolerable to play online with rather than 4.

I've been playing a lot of 3v3 too but I just don't see this as a counter argument to the issue I am talking about. Is 3v3 saving live? Yes. But Live can further be improved by making an effort to limit the CPU impact on Live Run by simply not letting games start until lobby's are full.

If your playing Live Run then you are obviously wanting to play against real players, otherwise you would play Pro Am. I am baffled as of why anyone would object to not starting to counter until the lobby is full to ensure we can at least go into a game 5v5 or even 3v3. The issue is obviously not as bad with 3v3 because a lobby with only 6 players is easier to fill up than a lobby with 10 players.

ThaLiveKing wrote:Like it or not 3 on 3 is saving this game at the moment. You can find 2 other players that tolerable to play online with rather than 4.

I've been playing a lot of 3v3 too but I just don't see this as a counter argument to the issue I am talking about. Is 3v3 saving live? Yes. But Live can further be improved by making an effort to limit the CPU impact on Live Run by simply not letting games start until lobby's are full.

If your playing Live Run then you are obviously wanting to play against real players, otherwise you would play Pro Am. I am baffled as of why anyone would object to not starting to counter until the lobby is full to ensure we can at least go into a game 5v5 or even 3v3. The issue is obviously not as bad with 3v3 because a lobby with only 6 players is easier to fill up than a lobby with 10 players.

I played a game of 3v3 and it started and ended pretty quickly as we dominated the other team. I like the smaller court.

Maybe there should be a lobby option for the game to wait until there's a fully lobby or maybe not reset the timer whenever someone enters or exits as that extends the time and actually causes people to leave

[Q] wrote:I played a game of 3v3 and it started and ended pretty quickly as we dominated the other team. I like the smaller court.

Maybe there should be a lobby option for the game to wait until there's a fully lobby or maybe not reset the timer whenever someone enters or exits as that extends the time and actually causes people to leave

I like the idea of an option to wait or play that way if people want to play they still can.

I have to say that I think this is still an issue with 3v3 albeit a minor one. I would still love to see the countdown timer not start until the lobby is completely full and shorten the timer to 10-15 seconds. Too many good lobby's are still ruined after just one person leaves.

Also, I agree 3v3 is taking over. That's all I play now but I am not sure if I am playing it purely because it is easier to get into a lobby that fills up or because I actually like it better. Right now it's either get into a game full of players almost instantly or try and try and try for 15 minutes in 5v5.

I really wish they would implement my idea of not starting the countdown timer until the lobby is full. If someone leaves it pauses then starts again when the lobby is full.